masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Tupari
Is there really a need for citations on Tupari? The vending machine at the Zakera Ward warehouse is the source of virtually all of the information in this article.Mickey711 11:19, February 5, 2010 (UTC) : Well that is essentially an in-game citation, indicating where and how this information can be verified. Added to the article. Chalta 17:13, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Deletion proposal The article is just an advertisement for a fictional product. The issue is the Same as with Blasto, amusing but redundant. It can possibly be merged other similar articles into an Advertisement article. --silverstrike 15:30, March 10, 2010 (UTC) : How about making a new category and putting said articles in said category? Merrell 21:29, March 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Category for what? A couple of articles? The page gives no new or relevant information, just a citation from the in-game advertisement. Perhaps putting all the advertisements in one article could have some merits, but on its own (regardless of which category it is in) the article is redundant. --silverstrike 22:48, March 10, 2010 (UTC) :::When I first joined this site, I thought this wiki was an encyclopedia of all things Mass Effect. This is based on my experience with Memory Alpha and some other video game based wikis, and my own cursory scan of this site. After some time, I know this is not the case. However, I am not sure what this site's purpose is. If we aren't an encyclopedia, then what is this site? Other places provide a walkthrough for the game, and many of the articles are direct word-to-word copies of what is seen in the game. And how does repeating these codexes and planetary descriptions and weapon stats any more new than what this article attempts to do? And, what is relevant? Relevant is such a subjective term. And how is redundancy defined? I agree that not everything needs its own page. For example, there is no need for articles on furniture. (Mea culpa, I wrote articles on this for another site. It was very silly.) TBH, I am frustrated by this site and sometimes that frustration is evident. It seems that so many articles are redundant and unnecessary. This is one of the least free wikis I have been a participant of. This site has such a rarefied air of elitism wherein the admins are opposed to just about anything that doesn't pass their small set of criteria and they share a common, yet secretive, vision. I think the admins need to create a page which defines what exactly their vision for this wiki is for and what it is not. And if you have such a page, advertise this page more loudly on the wiki. Throwback 00:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::I concur. Merrell 00:24, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::No, I don't think I will create such a page, or advertise it if I already have one (which I very well may!). I enjoy my "rarefied air of elitism" entirely too much to share it with the hoi polloi. Especially those who feel we operate in the third grade around here! :P SpartHawg948 00:24, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::As I have said, I agree with Throwback, and I do not feel that "we operate in the third grade around here". It does seem that if you don't like something, it must be changed to fit your standards even if the change is unfavorable to most users. Also what is and isn't considered "Trivia" is also subjective. And another thing. When there is a series of articles that seem to be too small to deserve their own page (such as some of the merchants), take a look at some of the planet pages. --Merrell 00:42, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Welcome to the jungle wiki! This is not Wikipedia where admins get desysoped for "fitting the world to their standards". Everyone gets a "fair shake" here :). SkyBon 16:31, September 10, 2010 (UTC) :::::The third-grade thing wasn't directed at you, or at the community in general, but at Throwback in particular, which is why I tried to add my comment directly after his, which you didn't like as you moved it. It was a reference to an incident where I suggested some categories weren't necessary, and he agreed. He then nominated all the aforementioned categories for deletion, with the reason being listed as "unnecessary categorization". Later, however, he changed the reason to "SpartHawg948 doesn't like it", despite the fact that he agreed with the request to delete and actually nominated them for deletion himself. I responded by stating that I thought we had progressed past the third grade, but that his childish behavior had demonstrated otherwise. No offense was intended towards you or anyone else not privy to this admittedly obscure reference. SpartHawg948 00:47, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I was already aware of that. I read his talk page. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with him in this case as well. If a user was to repeatedly act as if his opinion was the correct opinion, I would end up doing something like this also. And as well, I doubt he actually agreed with you.Merrell 01:00, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::::If you doubt he actually agreed with me, check it out in full, totally in context, not quoted from but in its entirety. User talk:DRY#Planet Info. That way you won't just have to take my word for it. SpartHawg948 01:03, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::(Edit conflict) I don't see a wiki as a place to write every small, boring, trivial piece of information that is available on the topic of the wiki. About a week or so ago, we had an article about a quarian which we had only the first name and the major information on the character was that he was mentioned in a 'vid' that Shepard happened to pass by while on a mission. The article itself was a couple of paragraphs (at most) and raised more questions than it answered - the most relevant one was how does he matters? We have full articles about Space Beetle, Space Cow, Pyjak, and other minor, and sometimes irrelevant pieces of information - but we have something to write on them, they have a purpose, a general description, they are part of the "universe". ::::You mentioned the part about the wiki being an encyclopedia, and I assume that you refer to wikipedia as encyclopedia. But even they sometimes decide that the topic is too small, insignificant, or any other reason, and they either delete the topic, or merge it into other articles. ::::Regarding the admins decisions, I'll let them answer. However, personally, I never found them to be unreasonable or for them to force their opinions. ::::Regarding this article: It is useless on its own, it can be either be merged with other topics, or get deleted. I rather navigate through a wiki with 1,500 focused article, then a wiki that deals with the same subject but allows every small detail to the point they might have 5,000 articles - for me, it will be harder to find what I'm looking for. Wikipedia is a place where I don't even try to search using the search feature, or through categories, I mostly rely on the search engine result. --silverstrike 00:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::I'm fine with merging this and other similar articles, as long as I can keep the part of the article that I care about (the part about the Tupari Sports Drink, and not Blasto) on my watchlist, and as long as redirects are created. Merrell 01:00, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well, you missed the point of the wiki. It's not about what you (or me or anyone else) care about. It's what right for the wiki. I personally have a wiki installed on my machine and can edit, delete, move, etc. whatever I feel like - but then again, I am the only contributor and reader. In a public wiki we should take action according to what is good for the wiki and not one self. This is the reason there are talk pages where people can comment on such suggestions and give reasoning for their point of view. --silverstrike 01:17, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yup! And free discussion and debate is encouraged and welcomed! If this wiki was really not free (as was suggested above) or was run with "a rarefied air of elitism wherein the admins are opposed to just about anything that doesn't pass their small set of criteria", this discussion wouldn't be happening, would it? If this wiki were really un-free, the elitist admins would just ban the malcontents for having the audacity to question their betters! (I love being able to talk like this. I so enjoy talking in jest!) A sure sign that it's not a dictatorship is when you're free to tear into the guys at the top (in this case, the admins). If the guys on top take you out and shoot you (or ban you), it is not free. If the worst they can do is turn around and tear into you, it's free. SpartHawg948 01:27, March 11, 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict'' × 9'') There is no particular common vision among the admins. (At least none that anyone has told me about. We don't have a secret handshake either, now that I come to think about it.) I think we could probably all agree, however, that we try to avoid churn, article feudalism, and the introduction of excessive complexity — all of which are rather subjective. We don't always get it right. Nor, I think, do we always get it wrong. For my part, I try to solicit input from multiple sources, discourage individual crusades, and generally tidy up the mess. My caution — born of hard-won experience from cleaning up in the aftermath of myriad poorly thought out or abandoned efforts — is sometimes incorrectly interpreted as intolerance to change. If contributors have experienced what they believe is unfair prejudice on the part of an admin, I suggest that they bring it up with another one of the admins armed with sufficient specific examples. This wiki is certainly not encyclopaedic, nor does it pretend to be. My feeling is this it tries to do a reasonable job of covering topics directly relevant to the franchise. Editorially it tends to be very conservative: it sticks quite closely to canonical sources (the games, the books, etc.). That is why many articles consist of such a high proportion of in-game material; and also why trivia tends to be discouraged unless directly relevant or patently true. Personally, I don't have any problem with keeping this article specifically; but I'll delete it if that's the consensus and I wouldn't revert a delete by someone else. If someone wants to merge it, that's fine too. (P.S. If that all seems irrelevant, keep in mind that I started writing many edit conflicts ago….) --DRY 01:33, March 11, 2010 (UTC) :Ah, DRY. Ever the voice of reason! Would that I could have articulated it like that. Unfortunately, when I saw the "rarefied air of elitism" bit, my mind instantly turned to jest, as I'm probably one of the least hoighty-toighty elitist snobs you could come across. I personally think this one should be merged, but I too will go with the flow, as I've done in the past when out-voted. One final note in response to DRY. Should we get a secret handshake? We do seem to be sorely lacking one! :) SpartHawg948 01:39, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Deletion discussion II Since the last discussion went nowhere, I'm re-proposing that this article be deleted. As I've said in the template, this is an extremely insignificant background item that isn't actually encountered in-game beyond ads in one area. It isn't notable. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:53, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :Concur. The most substantive thing about this page is the trivia section, and that right there is a HUGE red flag in my book. An article needs to be able to stand on its own based solely on the encyclopedic content. If it needs to use a trivia section twice as long as the actual article as a crutch, it needs to be deleted. I just hope this discussion doesn't turn into another "let's hold a referendum on the admins" thing, with one user whining about a "rarefied air of elitism wherein the admins are opposed to just about anything that doesn't pass their small set of criteria and they share a common, yet secretive, vision", and another chiming in to the point of deliberately refusing to acknowledge facts that contradict with their worldview. That was a nightmare... :{ SpartHawg948 08:37, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Concur as well. When a trivia section is longer than the article, then that's a problem. Lancer1289 19:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC) *I vote for keep. This drink plays a large role in humourosity atmosphere of the game. Therefore it has a significance. Furthermore, one more article is not going to, is it? SkyBon 16:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Well this article has had a good run, but it's been seven days and the vote is 3-1 so it is going. Lancer1289 19:52, September 16, 2010 (UTC) Strange, the article is still here... I'd vote for keep, even if just for the nugget that 'Tupari brings your ancestors back to life' is s reference to the incorrect translation of a Coca-Cola advertising campaign in Japan ('Coke adds life') Russian translation I don't know if it's coincidence, but "Tupari" word means "Idiots"/"Dumbasses"/"Slowpokes" in Russian language (actually, it's slang). Any ideas? --Nuttex 19:30, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :I'd have to say since Tupari is a sports drink, it is probably just more name trivia. Lancer1289 19:32, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Yup. It's Alko all over again. (for those of you going 'huh?'... see Alko and Alko, see if you can find a connection. Or try Pressha and Pressha.) SpartHawg948 19:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :Тупой (tupoy) means stupid in Russian. Tupari means nothing. SkyBon 20:12, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :Тупарь (tupar') means "retard" in Russian. Тупари (tupari) means "retards". --Nuttex 20:17, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Even if it does exist, then it is used quite infrequently. SkyBon 20:18, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Google proves it's not. Really, usually hear it quite often. ::::Heh. Google is crap. Тупые is used most often to describe idiots anyway. SkyBon 20:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC) Fascinating... truly fascinating. Can we get back to the issue here? Demonstrate a connection between Tupari Energy Drink and the Russian word for "retards", and it can get added into the article. SpartHawg948 20:26, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :There is none. Also in the Russian word the stress is on the last vowel, not the middle one. SkyBon 14:30, September 10, 2010 (UTC) ::Well then, just another piece of useless name trivia. Should this article avoid deletion, it doesn't belong in the trivia section as there is no relation. Lancer1289 14:33, September 10, 2010 (UTC) This drink and the company can't possibly be canon, since for one thing it pokes fun at players who went Renegon/Paragade, and because it claims to sell a trillion bottles a day..at one credit each. EDI claims Cerberus makes several billion credits a year. Shepard cost over 4 billion to "repair" also. I dunno, just more evidence it is not canon, I suppose. Not that it matters, since Lancer threw his typical fit and had the page remove anyway. He'll likely delete this topic or do another copypasta "this belongs in the forums I'm just trying to make things better for the standards" thing anyway. Cheers.